A pointer to the precarious state of logo design

Three weeks ago the Metropolitan Museum of Art—known colloquially and now formally as “the Met”—unveiled a new logo and identity system designed by the international firm Wolff Olins. The response from critics was swift and fierce. Such was the case with Google, Airbnb, Hillary Clinton’s campaign logo, the Olympics, and the rebrand that (arguably) sparked incendiary “logogate” culture: Gap.

With progressive democratization people consider their say a given and buck against being confronted with accomplished facts. Understandably an act of defiance. Why should it be any different with design enthusiasts? Praise the community for getting involved. There may be a better way to cope with to be continued logo bashing within the design community though. Young entrepreneurs have long wrapped their minds around the issue and are aware it to be of their benefit to take people along on their journey from the very start of development.

It’s best practice even when for tactical use, ie. to give stakeholders a chance to air their concerns, get it of their chest. In return you can learn from their behavior and better address these concerns. Best practice for community concerns large and small. Siegel+Gale’s Belk is sport on with everything said in this FastCoDesign article.

Lately we’ve been more impressed with logo design from unknown newcomers than from dedicated design firms and we’ve been more impressed with branding of some developers work or theme developer than from dedicated design firms. Developers design has outpaced that of designers.

These guys1 have a way with words, add just the right images and wrap’s up in a mighty fine website.